Current RvR design is a reason of zerging

[Zxul]

Thats what Larkuz suggesting to implement in ORvR zones, if you dont split - no lock for you. That will grand losing side (thats is probably outnumbered) to tie the fight in that zone, to achieve something.

This is preciselly what tick system tried to do. Seems it was not appreciated.

Yaliskah I suggested it a few times, guess I will repeat it.

Why people zerg? Cause from one hand, as undergeared and with not the best spec, numbers is the way to win. And from other, solo/small numbers roaming the same undergeared player has nothing to gain (he isn't likely to get kills), while will loose renown from zerg kills/resource delivering. Nothing to gain + things to loose from not zerging= zerging it is.

What is needed is a reward for going solo/small scale, and for moving from main zone to other zones, and by reward I mean personal and not faction wise. As in, not "if your side spreads in fort phase 2, your side has a better winning chance at stage 3", but "if you leave zerg/ move to offzone, you personally is likely to get extra renown/rewards"- since side reward results in "let the other guy spread and deal with premades, I'm staying here", while personal rewards results in "ohh shinies for me, time to go".

If you look at the current reward system, it is actually one of the main reasons for zerg. Reworked keep bag system= no reason to leave main zone, since your chance to get bag is the same whatever your side in the zone has 20 people or 200. Only real rvr reward which matters is invader in forts= no reason to leave main zone, since zerging to fort is the best way to get invader.

[Grobbok]

wanna have less zerg
try use rvr system from old game, where keeps don't have mobs inside, just players as defenders
then small group can attack fast keep and take it, ppl will split to attack multiple zones coz even 6 ppl could take keep if no defenders
now it take too long and ppl blobing, and again blobing and again biger, biger zerg
just TRY old system, if it will not work you can look for better solutions

[Yaliskah]

Thats what Larkuz suggesting to implement in ORvR zones, if you dont split - no lock for you. That will grand losing side (thats is probably outnumbered) to tie the fight in that zone, to achieve something.

This is preciselly what tick system tried to do. Seems it was not appreciated.

Yaliskah I suggested it a few times, guess I will repeat it.

Why people zerg? Cause from one hand, as undergeared and with not the best spec, numbers is the way to win. And from other, solo/small numbers roaming the same undergeared player has nothing to gain (he isn't likely to get kills), while will loose renown from zerg kills/resource delivering. Nothing to gain + things to loose from not zerging= zerging it is.

What is needed is a reward for going solo/small scale, and for moving from main zone to other zones, and by reward I mean personal and not faction wise. As in, not "if your side spreads in fort phase 2, your side has a better winning chance at stage 3", but "if you leave zerg/ move to offzone, you personally is likely to get extra renown/rewards"- since side reward results in "let the other guy spread and deal with premades, I'm staying here", while personal rewards results in "ohh shinies for me, time to go".

If you look at the current reward system, it is actually one of the main reasons for zerg. Reworked keep bag system= no reason to leave main zone, since your chance to get bag is the same whatever your side in the zone has 20 people or 200. Only real rvr reward which matters is invader in forts= no reason to leave main zone, since zerging to fort is the best way to get invader.

At some point i agree with your analysis, but it is not the subject OP pointed.

So rewards.

We could also work on this part to make it more interesting for smallscale and players in general. At some level, behind the curtain, some propositions have been made, but those, may have some terrible impact on server stability.

An idea (and it is still an idea) was to "break completely AAO/Malus system" to turn a system we could call "personnal AAO/malus". Going this way, means we would don't care anymore about faction imbalance. But in the end, do we (player) really care about this pop imbalance ?

Basically, your AAO/Malus would be calculated for you and only you dynamically in a limited radius, whatever the pop would be, only the pop in your direct environment would be taken into account. At some level, would be interesting for smallscale vs biggest structures, and ofc, contributions and RR gains would be more profitable directly to anyone being outnumbered. In the opposite biggest structure would suffer form lower gains : "No pain, no gain" or "to conquer without peril we triumph without glory". Point is, i see no reason to reward outragously 100 ppl killing one (try to share 1 pie in 100 parts...), but would it solve anything? Is the server able to endorse such amount of calculation? Are we ( you, players) ready to abandon the idea of AAO/Malus as it is now? Is there a risk of X-Realming doing this ? For sure, the "zerg" would not appreciate, and at some level, a smallscale vs a single target would not like it too.

[Komode]

Hello to everyone, thanks for participation.

"Current RvR design is a reason of zerging"

Yes and no.

If you were absoluetly right, during fort phase 2, population would try to spread equaly on 5 objectives to control them, which is obviously not the case. Is that bad game design? In this precise case, condition to win it clearly to spread and control. Point is when a side starts to mass his forces, to have weight, the other side adopt the same strategy.

If people blob to zerg on fort phase 2 - they lose phase 2 most of the times. They dont have opportunity to control all BOs at once.

Adding a timer? why not, it will reduce the amount of objectives and concentrate even more players around remaining objective (best exemple : keep siege), result : zerg.

At least around remaining objectives, not around enemy WC or keep only. Also there is option to add not very long lock timer. It was not too long though back in a days. There were some options to choose which BO you gonna focus.
These things are customizable i think.

So, well. Let say our choices are bad, and take a look in the past. before rework and merging. BOs were locked. And surprisingly, a whole faction was gently waiting the other siege it to crush it, letting the other doing the job in the zone. In which way was it so different? Oh and about T2-3, "you probably the "Bring back rats, cause it is not playable during NA time". You probably don't care, but some players do.

Well, i would like you dont put personal labels on anybody (me included) I wrote there were and will be guilds that like to zerg, but at least they gonna lose more in such conditions.
It will not solve whole problem, you are right, but it still something that already tested and was working better then now, am i wrong?

If you were right, saying it is absolutely not a player choice, on each zones, you would have only 2 blocks. Which is not the case, according some players still trying hard to stay away of the mass and trying to do their job since years, with some cap limitations until last week.

Im sorry i didnt add word "mostly" to the name of the topic although i wrote it in the topic body

Its zergy not mostly cause of people mentality but present RVR design.

^
I did not say it is absolutely not a player choice.

This is preciselly what tick system tried to do. Seems it was not appreciated.

I would like to know more opinions of rvr guilds in this topic about that tick system and how it relates to old system.

Anyways, the point is to add decent importance to controlling BOs to split the zerg.

Thanks!

[Zxul]

Spoiler:

This is preciselly what tick system tried to do. Seems it was not appreciated.

Yaliskah I suggested it a few times, guess I will repeat it.

Why people zerg? Cause from one hand, as undergeared and with not the best spec, numbers is the way to win. And from other, solo/small numbers roaming the same undergeared player has nothing to gain (he isn't likely to get kills), while will loose renown from zerg kills/resource delivering. Nothing to gain + things to loose from not zerging= zerging it is.

What is needed is a reward for going solo/small scale, and for moving from main zone to other zones, and by reward I mean personal and not faction wise. As in, not "if your side spreads in fort phase 2, your side has a better winning chance at stage 3", but "if you leave zerg/ move to offzone, you personally is likely to get extra renown/rewards"- since side reward results in "let the other guy spread and deal with premades, I'm staying here", while personal rewards results in "ohh shinies for me, time to go".

If you look at the current reward system, it is actually one of the main reasons for zerg. Reworked keep bag system= no reason to leave main zone, since your chance to get bag is the same whatever your side in the zone has 20 people or 200. Only real rvr reward which matters is invader in forts= no reason to leave main zone, since zerging to fort is the best way to get invader.

At some point i agree with your analysis, but it is not the subject OP pointed.

So rewards.

We could also work on this part to make it more interesting for smallscale and players in general. At some level, behind the curtain, some propositions have been made, but those, may have some terrible impact on server stability.

An idea (and it is still an idea) was to "break completely AAO/Malus system" to turn a system we could call "personnal AAO/malus". Going this way, means we would don't care anymore about faction imbalance. But in the end, do we (player) really care about this pop imbalance ?

Basically, your AAO/Malus would be calculated for you and only you dynamically in a limited radius, whatever the pop would be, only the pop in your direct environment would be taken into account. At some level, would be interesting for smallscale vs biggest structures, and ofc, contributions and RR gains would be more profitable directly to anyone being outnumbered. In the opposite biggest structure would suffer form lower gains : "No pain, no gain" or "to conquer without peril we triumph without glory". Point is, i see no reason to reward outragously 100 ppl killing one (try to share 1 pie in 100 parts...), but would it solve anything? Is the server able to endorse such amount of calculation? Are we ( you, players) ready to abandon the idea of AAO/Malus as it is now? Is there a risk of X-Realming doing this ? For sure, the "zerg" would not appreciate, and at some level, a smallscale vs a single target would not like it too.

If the problem is the server stability, simplest would be probably to add a separate loot table, which you/your party get to roll on only if you get the loot rights for the kill in rvr lake, and if you are not in a wb, with stuff like updated Rare Fortune armor, updated Battlebrew Backpack, renown pots, ets.

This way, if your party is part of the zerg even if not in wb, your party isn't likely to get the loot rights from kill= no loot roll, motivating to move away from zerg and to other zones.

[carlos]

B) aoe damage (not convinced on single target) should not stack ie only a limited amount of one type of spell cause damage to player over a time (example after 4 same spells hitting in x second , you become immune to more of these for a time)
Both of the above limit damage output and as such reward from blobbing.

Are you only referring to spells?

Not trying to bait but a WL, who as it is now got little to offer in a WB, will have absoutly nothing to offer if this would be implemented.

Not sure I understand

Enough said...

[Bozzax]

Bud unless you design a mech where the blob needs to unblob you will have a blob (zone domination did this)

[heybaws]

Just finished KV during NA time: 100 destro vs. 60 order. More than enough destro to split on all bo's, i guess we will have more than enough people during EU time to do the same. Also that was one of those zone locks, where order decided to make a final stand on bo for some additional kills and fun, but destro just locked the zone by holding other 3 and went straight to the fort. With current system if you outnumbered, all you can do is watch how you losing the zone. Please consider 4 BO 15 min. holdout for lock, atleast as a test like it was with new AoE cap. This will certainly lead both realms for some interesting fights, after all, this is all that our game can give to us.

[Lithenir]

Please consider 4 BO 15 min. holdout for lock, atleast as a test like it was with new AoE cap. This will certainly lead both realms for some interesting fights, after all, this is all that our game can give to us.

This reminds me on the good old days on live, when you had to claim the keeps on a 2 hour timer and had to held all the bos. On the last night before the RvR change we ruined a lock because we sneaked in a keep and killed the lord, just with 3 mdps ^^

Because of the zerging, as a sc/roaming player it becomes kinda frustrating. Mostly you just see a big red bubble running over you. I like the idea of 4 BO 15 min timer. Locks just come too fast and easy, you don't really have to work for it. I don't see as much big fights for locks as I used to see. No Guerrilla tactics to ruin the lock for the other faction, because it's not possible. Nowadays it is mostly a big mass running through the zones to the next fortress.

[wonshot]

Some of the Battleobjectives are just not "included" in a system where not all BOs are needed for a zonelock.

Thundermountain's "Gromril Kruk" (Far East isolated BO for those not evening knowing it) is a prime example. With a system that only require 3/4 BOs to lock the zone, this BO never gets into play. However with all BOs required for a zonelock, you can put an organized force on the far BO forcing the zonelockers to both face you, but also be organized enough as a whole to cover the rest of the map.